The US Census Bureau released it’s population estimates for cities today and the data obtained between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2018 doesn’t look so good for Dallas.

Fort Worth gained 19,522 (895,008) and is 3rd in terms of largest numeric increase. Dallas gained just 1,960 (1,345,047) over the same time period.

According to these estimates, Dallas has steadily gained close to 20,000 people on a yearly basis since 2010, so I wonder if the new estimate is more of a correction to over estimated gains in years past.

Last edited by Mgreen15 on 23 May 2019 17:21, edited 2 times in total.

Mgreen15 wrote:The US Census Bureau released it’s population estimates for cities today and the data obtained between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2018 doesn’t look so good for Dallas.

Fort Worth gained 19,522 (895,008) and is 3rd in terms of largest numeric increase. Dallas gained just 1,960 (1,345,047) over the same time period.

According to these estimates, Dallas has steadily gained close to 20,000 people on a yearly basis since 2010, so I wonder if the new estimate is more of a correction to over estimated gains in years past.

Mgreen15 wrote:The US Census Bureau released it’s population estimates for cities today and the data obtained between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2018 doesn’t look so good for Dallas.

Fort Worth gained 19,522 (895,008) and is 3rd in terms of largest numeric increase. Dallas gained just 1,960 (1,345,047) over the same time period.

According to these estimates, Dallas has steadily gained close to 20,000 people on a yearly basis since 2010, so I wonder if the new estimate is more of a correction to over estimated gains in years past.

That Dallas number looks like it's missing a digit.

Considering Dallas’ growth trend from 2010-2017... it really does seem like this is missing a digit. But this is correct, according to the census bureau. I would like to understand their process of gathering information for these yearly estimates and if the data is truly accurate.

Texas gained an estimated 367,000 in the twelve month period, for a total of 3,850,000 since the last census. The gain will be 4,125,000 in ten years if the latest annual rate continues up to April 1, 2020.And the only states which have gained more than 20% as many new residents so far are Florida (2,673,000), North Carolina (952K), Georgia (929K), Washington (890K), and Arizona (886K, or 23% as many as Texas).

Texas gained an estimated 367,000 in the twelve month period, for a total of 3,850,000 since the last census. The gain will be 4,125,000 in ten years if the latest annual rate continues up to April 1, 2020.And the only states which have gained more than 20% as many new residents so far are Florida (2,673,000), North Carolina (952K), Georgia (929K), Washington (890K), and Arizona (886K, or 23% as many as Texas).

Texas gained an estimated 367,000 in the twelve month period, for a total of 3,850,000 since the last census. The gain will be 4,125,000 in ten years if the latest annual rate continues up to April 1, 2020.And the only states which have gained more than 20% as many new residents so far are Florida (2,673,000), North Carolina (952K), Georgia (929K), Washington (890K), and Arizona (886K, or 23% as many as Texas).

Dallas-Fort Worth could see biggest population surge in U.S. through 2029, study saysBy John Egan, CultureMap Dallas, Jan 9, 2020, 3:32 pm

Brace yourselves, North Texans. Following a decade of eye-popping population growth, Dallas-Fort Worth is expected in this decade to once again lead the nation’s metro areas for the number of new residents.

New data from commercial real estate services company Cushman & Wakefield shows DFW gained 1,349,378 residents from 2010 through 2019. In terms of the number of new residents tallied during the past decade, DFW ranked first among U.S. metro areas, the data indicates.

From 2020 through 2029, DFW is projected to tack on another 1,393,623 residents, Cushman & Wakefield says.

For the second decade in a row, that would be the highest number of new residents for any metro area, the company says. By comparison, the Oklahoma City metro area was home to nearly 1.4 million people in 2018....As of July 2018, the Census Bureau estimated 7,539,711 people lived in DFW. Under the Cushman & Wakefield scenario, DFW’s population would swell to about 9 million by the time the calendar flips to 2030....Today, DFW is the fourth largest metro area in the U.S., behind New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The population of Chicago, the third largest metro area, barely budged from 2010 to 2018, according to the Census Bureau. Today, about 9.46 million people live in the Windy City and its suburbs.

If the Chicago area’s population growth remains relatively flat, DFW’s headcount conceivably could surpass Chicago’s in the not-too-distant future....A key barometer for DFW’s growth prospects is the size of its tech workforce.

A July 2019 report from commercial real estate services company CBRE found that only the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, and Washington, D.C., beat DFW for the depth of the pool of tech workers in U.S. metro areas.

Cord1936 wrote:Dallas-Fort Worth could see biggest population surge in U.S. through 2029, study saysBy John Egan, CultureMap Dallas, Jan 9, 2020, 3:32 pm

[b]For the second decade in a row, that would be the highest number of new residents for any metro area, the company says[/b]. By comparison, the Oklahoma City metro area was home to nearly 1.4 million people in 2018.

Cord1936 wrote:Dallas-Fort Worth could see biggest population surge in U.S. through 2029, study saysBy John Egan, CultureMap Dallas, Jan 9, 2020, 3:32 pm

[b]For the second decade in a row, that would be the highest number of new residents for any metro area, the company says[/b]. By comparison, the Oklahoma City metro area was home to nearly 1.4 million people in 2018.

I'm not sure that's true. Did DFW really add more people than any other metro from 2000 to 2010? (I think Houston may have outpaced us.)

From the Census Bureau:

DFW: 6,371,773 (2010) 5,161,544 (2000) 1,210,228 added

Houston: 5,946,800 (2010) 4,715,407 (2000) 1,231,393 added.

VERY close, but DFW did NOT add the most people in the previous decade.

^^^^^^^

CBRE is using a different measurement period than what you referenced.

They are counting the decade from 2000-2009, 2010-2019, and 2020-2029.

CBRE performed the analysis used in the article but that seems to be how they are measuring the "decade" they reference. It actually is ten years when you count their first year (2000, 2010, 2020) as year one and the tenth year is 2009, 2019, and 2029.

Assuming this pace of population increase continues, it will be interesting to see how the people and developments are allocated to urban areas, Dallas proper, and suburbs. Even if the increase continues as it has - most going to suburbs - it should still instigate a ton of new urban development. I'm hoping that the split will be a bit closer to 50/50, which I think puts Dallas squarely on a path to true "urban-hood".

jetnd87 wrote:Assuming this pace of population increase continues, it will be interesting to see how the people and developments are allocated to urban areas, Dallas proper, and suburbs. Even if the increase continues as it has - most going to suburbs - it should still instigate a ton of new urban development. I'm hoping that the split will be a bit closer to 50/50, which I think puts Dallas squarely on a path to true "urban-hood".

This sounds about right, and I think we are definitely trending in this direction.

What could be interesting is seeing suburbs to the south and east of Downtown start to flourish. Yes it would still be suburban growth, but it would help pull the 'focal point' of DFW back towards Downtown which would make the CBD even more attractive for companies to locate.

jetnd87 wrote:Assuming this pace of population increase continues, it will be interesting to see how the people and developments are allocated to urban areas, Dallas proper, and suburbs. Even if the increase continues as it has - most going to suburbs - it should still instigate a ton of new urban development. I'm hoping that the split will be a bit closer to 50/50, which I think puts Dallas squarely on a path to true "urban-hood".

So per this article, DFW added ~1.35M residents. I've seen some sources say that Dallas city proper added ~150K residents from 2010-2019. So the mix was around 10:90 Dallas:Suburbs (incl. FW). Now within that 10%, I have no idea how much was in "urban" vs. non-urban neighborhoods. Even if we just shift slightly towards parity - say 15-20% in Dallas proper - that should drive a ton of urban development. I'm hopeful that with a lot of the changes since 2010 and the limits of growing McMansions up north, it's higher than that. But who knows.

Regardless, if these population projections are remotely true, there should be a solid business case for many, many new projects in and around the urban core, which will drive us to the density inflection point.

One thing that is obvious (but still worth noting), is that the boom in the burbs is not taking share from urban areas. Instead, it is cannibalizing other burbs (inner-burbs) for the most part. It will be interesting to see how these areas adapt to these changing circumstances. There are some neighborhoods that we saw being constructed brand new when we were young, that are no downright dilapidated. Many have found a way survive just fine, but others seem to struggle.

I'm not saying any burb in its entirety lost population as most burbs have fringes with plenty of land to develop. But there are significant 'hoods' in places like Garland, Carrolton, Lewisville, Grand Prairie, and Irving, that have gone down hill in favor of flashier, newer housing. Some of that has slowed down with the recent surge in the economy as 'flippers' have found a way to make a little $ on them, but they won't fair well at all during another recession. The rather poor quality of home construction during early booms means a decent amount of $ must be put into them to keep them relevant. That doesn't even speak to the failing infrastructure in these neighborhoods who's value doesn't offset the expense of long term maintenance. Anybody walking on a sidewalk in those neighborhoods, experiencing a water main break, or navigating around pot holes knows what I'm talking about.

Can confirm Garland and Mesquite and Parts South of the Irving Convention Center in Irving are in rough shape. Arlington is ugly everywhere. I think Plano and Richardson have done a better job in staying relevant and more liveable when compared to other inner ring Suburbs. Im not familiar with Carrollton. It's the cyclical nature of Suburbs.

I think Plano and Richardson have done a better job in staying relevant and more liveable when compared to other inner ring Suburbs. Im not familiar with Carrollton. It's the cyclical nature of Suburbs.

OK, I get what you are saying. It's kind of interesting that due to decreases in family size, lots of those older neighborhoods were built at close to 5k people per sq mile, and if you compare on a zip basis now, many have fallen to 1500-2000. That has profound effects on retail in the area, and high retail vacancy makes an area look even more rundown. It's a perplexing cycle.

OMG... i can't believe I left out Arlington. Probably one of the best examples (worst). Funny though, as they aren't really an 'inner' ring suburb. I'm not sure what it is about Arlington, but so much of it is hurtin.

I rarely go out to Arlington, but it just seems like it should be doing so much better than it actually is. It seems like it's decently well situated in the metroplex and looks to have pretty good access to the jobs in Downtown Fort Worth, Downtown Dallas, and Las Colinas, and they also have a mid-sized university there. Instead of focusing on those strengths, they seem to put all their efforts into being an entertainment district.

This is speaking as someone who doesn't really know much about Arlington and doesn't visit much, so I could be wrong here.

Unless you go to a game I don't know why anybody would visit Arlington.

Interestingly, the Parks Mall is a fascinating place if you want to see what shopping was like two decades ago. That mall is a busy place, one of the busiest malls I have ever seen and is a very accurate representation of what malls used to be like in the 90's and before. So, that could be a reason to go, just to see that.

There will not be a July 1 estimate for 2020 and we won't get the April 1 headcount until the Census results finish processing. However, tomorrow was scheduled to be the public release for July 1, 2019 estimates at the county and MSA level. Hope they finished everything in the release well ahead of the lockdowns!

My understanding is that for years the only thing that prevented a population decrease was Parkland Hospital. The annual county population increase was usually less than the number of babies born at Parkland.

Thirty years of subsidizing the bottom and the top of the economic ladder while making life miserable for the middle class is having it's inevitable result.

Tnexster wrote:If Dallas were somehow able to adequately develop south Dallas those numbers would likely turn.

In order for that to happen there would have to be a black exodus and a white interest in order for development to take off down there.Other than that, its going to keep being "charity" like developments like a new wal mart or a new subway and then the city boasts about how much development is happening in south dallas. It should not take this long to develop south Dallas. It's literally the future of the city. Let's be honest, developers tend to not develop alot in black/brown neighborhoods unless they are trying to replace them. Facts.

i am not sure i agree with that. The local / regional developers have been ignoring the South and building North for decades. But now the DFW area is being looked at by national and even international investors who do not share that opinion.They see vast areas of undeveloped land 30 minutes or less from Downtown Dallas with excellent interstate highway access. Cheap land ( compared to the coasts ). What's not to like ?

I'm not sure why you disagree, Scott; that is precisely an example of the last thing that Warrior said.

Insiders or outsiders alike are interested in that land because it was artificially depressed in value through racist redlining policy. The Dallas residents who have been deprived of asset-building capacity, during all the time that they held on in these "well located" areas -- which remained depressed because they could not access the capital to fix them, and had to depend on outsiders to do so -- are citizens who could not get the capital to develop their own neighborhoods no matter what market intelligence they brought to the table. They are now supposed to get a move on as this intelligent market rate development prices them out.

Want to bet the city leaders finally find a way to improve their public services dramatically in South Dallas and South Oak Cliff, too, right around the time white investors with lobbyists become the most common landowners?

Redlining in metro Atlanta corralled poor minorities in the southern part of the area, similar as we see in Dallas. In Atlanta now, though, what's happening in many large swaths of real estate sequestered by the racist lending practices of the past sees very expensive neighborhoods going up. It's not as much about race or ethnicity, but income. Much of the prettiest geography in Dallas County - northern reaches of the hill country - had been similarly sequestered by redlining and is just waiting for the money to figure out Wynwood, Redbird, South Oak Cliff is sooooo much closer to Downtown than Plano/Frisco. It'll happen one day.

But can a young person magically be "about income" just because they are someone promising who happens to get a few scholarships, out of a family and corralled community that have never had the choice of being "about income"?

Should they want to be about it, honestly, seeing what other Dallasites' participation in that gravy train did to South Dallas this whole time?

And will they have the option of participating in the New $outh Dallas otherwise?

You're right about that beauty, but look at the big picture (returning to the Census growth topic). Texas has a claim to be strong economically if any state in the union does. But most counties are losing population while the ones that are growing are more socially fragile than ever, from reorganizing their whole way of life around chasing new business jobs.

Other places want those jobs too, and we're getting them. We must be competent. We must be good at it. But I don't really see Texas developing the kind of society that reinvents itself in more than a couple isolated places.

We're complacent in a way, because we are good at something there's much more competition for right now. It must be important! Nobody likes to hear that they're good at something that isn't important, or that is important but pointless and brittle, transactional.

We'll be in some trouble if that trick plays out, as our Texas Triangle cities sit at a less favorable cost structure / lifestyle recruitment position in the future. If we have been too busy chasing opportunity to treat each other well, or trust each other when money wasn't backstopping it, then we'll be just as brittle as the Rust Belt was. We have to ask if it's possible that, for the most part, Texas' community wealthbuilding position has peaked in the past couple of years, and what that would mean for North Texas' strategic decisionmaking.

There's the potential, at least, that there won't be as many more estates popping up as we're projecting; that demand will pop up conservatively, only adjacent to established luxury enclaves; and that the whole broad southern tier of the metro won't fill out any sooner than the whole western tier of Cincinnati is going to.

scott2 wrote:i am not sure i agree with that. The local / regional developers have been ignoring the South and building North for decades. But now the DFW area is being looked at by national and even international investors who do not share that opinion.They see vast areas of undeveloped land 30 minutes or less from Downtown Dallas with excellent interstate highway access. Cheap land ( compared to the coasts ). What's not to like ?

I think this is true, Peter Brodsky who is developing RedBird is from the NE. Has a very bold vision of what the area can be. My fear for the RedBird area is that it's a success and then residents that call that area home get forced out, then replaced by millennials.

Cord1936 wrote:In looking at March 26, 2020 census.gov data, RELEASE NUMBER CB20-53, it shows Dallas County grew by 6,166 year-over-year July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019:

Population increased slightly, but only due to births over deaths. More live folks voting with their feet moved out than moved in.

Fiscal 2019 births at Parkland alone: 12,642.

I'd be curious to see the demographic changes on income and age. Are we losing young, educated millenials or is this the result of homes that once held families now being empty nesters, homes that once held families now being bought and renovated by young couples who have less children or no children, or larger sized lower/mid income families being priced out and fleeing for some of our cheaper suburbs.

It is fairly common to see central counties showing international net in-migration and domestic net out-migration, but Dallas County is actually performing relatively poorly in these statistics. I just took a look at the numbers for the central counties of the 19 largest metro areas.

Dallas County is most similar to Los Angeles County, Cook County IL (Chicago), Wayne County MI (Detroit), and Suffolk County MA (Boston) with high relative domestic out-migration combined with relatively low-to-medium international in-migration.

I sat in on a webinar on the impact of the pandemic on urban centers and none of this is good news for any central city. Covid is already driving business to the suburban market because they see value in a location less prone to higher infection potential. It's great news for areas like Legacy West that could benefit from this latest trend. That trend also appears to hold true for more urban dwellers as the market for home rentals away from the city is suddenly growing. Point being that Covid could easily put more pressure on Dallas population numbers if out-migration takes hold.

The fear of crowded places with a higher infection potential is temporary, for sure; if we get into a situation of novel viral pandemics rolling across a decade or two, then population density will flatten.... In the mean time, this is a perfect opportunity for Dallas to work on pedestrian infrastructure, guide the developing world with a rational plan that encourages walking.